A large number of surveillance sensors have been deployed around the world. The surveillance sensors are usually connected to a private network of sensors, varying from small networks (e.g. in a home) to large networks (e.g. covering a city's public transport facilities). The ownership of the sensor networks, and the ownership of the content (e.g., images, video, and the like) captured by the sensor networks, is strongly related to the ownership of the property on which the sensor networks are installed. Installation of the sensor networks are typically motivated by the objective of protecting the property through surveillance. However, in practice, there is a need for use of the content captured by the sensor networks by other parties for other purposes such as security (e.g., law enforcement) or business analysis.
There is little incentive to share content between different sensor networks or with third parties, especially in the case of surveillance video. Law enforcement services may apply for a court order to access content, but the due process involved in such an order reduces the timeliness of the information. Due to the delay, the information can be used forensically only, without the opportunity to use information as actionable intelligence to respond to issues immediately. Other parties are left to time consuming negotiations, which are worthwhile only for long ongoing access to the sensor networks.
One approach sets up a sharing arrangement, where owners install a camera phone on their window to record videos of a viewpoint. A photo of the viewpoint from the window is submitted to a mediator. The mediator assesses the usefulness of the viewpoint in the context of many other submissions. If the mediator accepts the photo, the camera phone owner is then paid a pro rata fee whenever the camera phone is recording for this purpose, regardless of what is happening in the scene observed from the viewpoint. The owner has to determine whether to install the camera phone at the window or use the camera phone for other purposes.
In addition to sharing content captured by private sensor networks in the course of their operations, there is a need for third parties to capture content from the private sensor networks in a way that is different from the owner's requirements. For example, a higher video resolution may be needed to recognise a face or license plate, or a higher video frame rate may be needed to observe a suspicious action by a criminal.
In addition, the availability of actuated sensors, such as pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras in camera networks, means that some content could be captured by the sensor, but is not captured because the acquiring sensor is pointed elsewhere. As it is not possible to retrospectively change sensor settings, the forensic approach does not accommodate such information needs. One approach defines an information need (e.g., capture a frontal face of each person in the scene) and actuates a camera to fulfil the information need, considering transition costs (i.e., when the camera is changing capture state (i.e., configurations of the camera), there is a period in which the video stream is not useful due to blur and the like). However, the approach assumes that full control over all cameras in the camera network is available, which is not the case when using a third party's camera network.
Thus, there exists a need for providing access to content from a third party's sensor networks to provide content in a timely manner and content that is fit for the purpose of analysis. Such a provision of the third party's sensor network should also be in such a way that the third party has an incentive to share content while respecting the third party's own operations.